The financial crisis will force the Obama administration to make a choice that will define its future - and ours.

To understand the origins of today’s stand-off between Republicans and Democrats over the US debt crisis, it is necessary to revisit an event which took place in Boston Harbour nearly 238 years ago. On December 16, 1773, a group of Massachusetts colonists boarded ships belonging to the East India Company and threw the entire cargo into the sea. There, in tax rebellion, began the American Revolution.

This iconic event in US history, the one from which the modern Tea Party takes its name, helped establish a national aversion to taxation that has remained at the heart of the American psyche ever since. For a people defined by the idea of rugged individualism, self-reliance and the frontier spirit, the presumption of low taxes – and correspondingly small government – is an article of faith as sacred as motherhood and apple pie.

The Problem

Few would contest the manifold economic success that these principles have delivered. They are the very foundation of the American economic model, and helped to make the US the richest and most powerful nation the world has ever seen. But here’s the problem. In recent times, both government and its spending commitments have been getting a whole lot bigger. Taxation, on the other hand, has failed to keep pace. On the contrary: under George W Bush, America reduced its tax burden even as its spending escalated. Since President Obama came to power, spending has run further out of control, with no compensating tax increases.

Hard as it is to believe in some of its states, America as a whole remains a low-tax economy in comparison with most other “rich” nations. Yet its government spending is approaching the heroic levels seen in Europe. For the time being, the gap is filled by borrowing from foreigners, a plainly unsustainable and humbling path – made all the more worrying by the fact that there are huge spending pressures still to come from the needs and demands of an ageing population. Something has to give. Either America must spend less, or tax more.

Misconceptions

But before analysing the significance of this choice, we need to lay a couple of misconceptions about the nature of the current crisis to rest. From President Obama to Larry Summers, the former treasury secretary, to Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the IMF, to our own Vince Cable, the airwaves have been ringing with apocalyptic warnings about the likely consequences for the world economy should Congress fail to break the impasse over the debt ceiling by the August 2 deadline. Any American default, Summers has warned, would be like “Lehman on steroids… it’s gonna be financial Armageddon”.

Lagarde has wagged her finger at the US and urged action similar in its “courageousness” to that taken last week by the eurozone, which she somewhat optimistically seems to think has now largely solved its problems. Meanwhile, the Business Secretary, in an extraordinary and ill-advised outburst, accused “a few Right-wing nutters” in Congress of posing a bigger threat to the world economy than the trials and tribulations of the euro.

To heap the blame for America’s indecision on a particular ideology is to misunderstand the nature and importance of the debate – yet Mr Cable seems determined to accuse President Obama’s opponents of holding the world to ransom.

Are any of these warnings valid? Well, if America were to default, it would indeed be a seismic upheaval of shattering dimensions. In reality, it’s not going to happen. What’s being played out here is not, at this stage at least, an existential event, but a political charade.

Distress signs

There have been signs of distress in financial markets in recent days, but in the main, investors have displayed a remarkable lack of concern, with US Treasuries still trading at yields close to their historic lows.

They are right to be sanguine. The bottom line is that Mr Obama is not about to go down as the first president in history to default – which in any case would be to breach the Constitutional amendment stating that “the validity of the public debt of the United States shall not be questioned”.

Much as he would like to blame Republicans for such a calamity, he would not be able to escape responsibility. It is the President’s job to find solutions. The buck ultimately stops with him.

If, by some outside chance, the President does petulantly decide to throw himself off the cliff, it will be an unnecessary and surreal type of default. America is not insolvent, in the same way that some of the peripheral economies of the eurozone plainly are. It’s simply that it cannot agree on the correct balance between spending and tax. The crisis is political, not economic – which makes it quite unlike the situation in the eurozone, where it is both.

The immediate problem of the deficit – and possibly of the longer-term demographic challenges, too – could easily be solved with a single measure, the imposition of a European-style federal sales tax, akin to VAT. Yet hell will freeze over before such an abomination is agreed.

With characteristic wit, Mr Summers has summarised the issue thus: Democrats are against VAT because they see it as a regressive tax which would hit the poor, while Republicans are against it because they see it as a money machine that would entrench high state spending. Perhaps if Democrats came to appreciate its qualities as a revenue generator, and Republicans its regressive characteristics, they might actually be able to agree.

The parties have produced several rival plans for fiscal consolidation, but there’s little merit in getting into the minutiae: to the outside world, they all look as flawed and implausible as each other.

And the detail of the argument is, in any case, almost irrelevant compared to the titanic battle for the heart and soul of America’s future that underlies it.

Staying loyal

Does the US economy stay loyal to its low-tax, libertarian traditions, or does it retreat into serene, low-growth, European-style old age by reinforcing its social welfare programmes and charging citizens the taxes necessary to pay for them? Not since the Civil War has the nation been so polarised. If it were possible to split the US in two, and for each half to go its own way, it might provide some kind of a solution. But, ultimately, one voice must triumph over another.

For the US to forsake the principles that have underpinned its economic success for more than two centuries would be a disaster not just for the country, but for the world. European experience teaches that rising taxes almost invariably entrench higher spending. Once a culture of entitlements – a cushy, cradle-to-grave welfare state – becomes established, it’s very difficult to remove. When a choice then has to be made between spending on welfare and productive investment in the nation’s future – education, defence and so on – the latter is always culled first.

European style

Paradoxically, although moving to a European-style tax base would provide all the revenues the country needs, it would inevitably mark the start of America’s long retreat from military and economic hegemony.

Economic might is as much to do with confidence and perception as reality. The spectacle of a nation so lacking in credible political leadership that it cannot resolve its differences, threatens to default on its debts, and would rather print money than face up to its underlying economic challenges, is already perilously close to breaking the spell. America needs to wake up, before it’s too late.